Re: Another question based on: Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 eculp wrote: The dialog at the end of this email is becoming a bit more philosophical than I need right now ;). Is there an accepted or reasonably so, sure-fire way to get linux flash[79] working in Prerelease or in current? If so, would you please share how you did it on this list? Getting my method accepted so that I could modify the ports in question, is the reason for all this folderol. The method I detail below is what I followed, and it's complicated enough that NO WAY would I ever suggest anyone follow it, but I haven't been able to provoke anyone in authority to either agree or disagree (officially) with me, either to get me rolling, or to stop a major bore from putting everyone to sleep. I don['t enjoy all this arguing. Flash is becoming more dominate daily and there are many sites that are basically unusable without it. Some banking, telco, etc. sites, etc. That are difficult if not impossible too use for account access without flash and don't pay much attention to end user requests based on the installed base of Flash[89]. That brings up another detail, many sites now require Flash[89] even though they don't actually need it probably to impress their customers with their being on the technological, bleeding edge. Thanks, Chuck, for getting this started and for finding a solution that may or may not be appropriate for all. I would personally like to try what you have done with flash9 if it is stable for you and if you would be so kind as to document a bit clearer how to do it. Well, I couldn't get any responses from my mail to the ports leaders, so I didn't even try to make a port of it. I looked over to my Gentoo Linux box, sand saw that my firefox there (which does flash just fine) had the libflashplayer.so in /usr/lib/firefox/plugins, so I copied that file tp my /usr/compat/usr/lib/linux-firefox/plugins. I did an ldd on that file, and found all files excepting one existed on my system, so one by one I moved them to /usr/compat/linux/usr/lib (checking each time, with the llinux ldd, that the loader was finding the file being used). I *think* that there was one that I coudlnt find (I'm not really sire at this point), but I think it was liobdl.so.2, so I copied that one from my Gentoo box also, and also the requisite softlink to libdl.so (remember that all linux libs need their symlinks to the library file without the version number). I need to admit that there were a couple of startup errors I got from the linux-firefox, ones that told me it couldn't find a aprticular library, but when I located the library that it couldn't find, and moved it to the compat tree, the error evaporated. Once I got finished with all this dance, flash9 worked fine using linux-firefox. Thanks to all, ed Quoting Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:31 -0500): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:05:16 -0500): I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would honor Would you mind telling us how, so that we understand the problem? hier(7) then all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into $(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir. This means every single linux app that uses linux libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day, to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy causes. It's a big reason why the flash things don't work. Want proof? Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that those extensions use, then you'll begin to see. Not all those libs are browser products, either. Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there. I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work. Ports management hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did. I don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way. I tried that once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux application to have it's own wrapper was the cleaner way to go. Huh, if that's so, then I guess I should be stopped
Another question based on: Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
The dialog at the end of this email is becoming a bit more philosophical than I need right now ;). Is there an accepted or reasonably so, sure-fire way to get linux flash[79] working in Prerelease or in current? If so, would you please share how you did it on this list? Flash is becoming more dominate daily and there are many sites that are basically unusable without it. Some banking, telco, etc. sites, etc. That are difficult if not impossible too use for account access without flash and don't pay much attention to end user requests based on the installed base of Flash[89]. That brings up another detail, many sites now require Flash[89] even though they don't actually need it probably to impress their customers with their being on the technological, bleeding edge. Thanks, Chuck, for getting this started and for finding a solution that may or may not be appropriate for all. I would personally like to try what you have done with flash9 if it is stable for you and if you would be so kind as to document a bit clearer how to do it. Thanks to all, ed Quoting Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:31 -0500): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:05:16 -0500): I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would honor Would you mind telling us how, so that we understand the problem? hier(7) then all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into $(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir. This means every single linux app that uses linux libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day, to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy causes. It's a big reason why the flash things don't work. Want proof? Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that those extensions use, then you'll begin to see. Not all those libs are browser products, either. Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there. I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work. Ports management hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did. I don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way. I tried that once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux application to have it's own wrapper was the cleaner way to go. Huh, if that's so, then I guess I should be stopped anyhow. You think that way? I think you are referring to me here. I think the important part to understand my opinion to install end-user applications into PREFIX instead of LINUXPREFIX (note: linux library ports _have_ to go to LINUXBASE) is missing here. In fact, I have never been at all good at remembering names, to the point that I no longer even try. I haven't the faintest idea (even now) if it was you or not. If it pleases you, though, that's fine, assume away. I don't think I was insulting, I have made enough of an ass of myself in the past to realize the folly of being sarcastic (it always comes back to bite you). I didn't understand it as insulting. No user shall have subdirs of LINUXPREFIX in his path. This would open up Pandorra's box. OK, need to stop you here. I don't know what that LINUXPREFIX item is. I It was either my mispelling of LINUXBASE, or my failed try to make a distinction between the user chosen prefix for two different management domains. Chose the error you like more. ;-) just grepped for it in /usr/ports subdirs Mk, emulators, and www (recursive one), and even did an apropos. I did a bit of googling and found a LINUXPREFIX in some Linux docs, is that the one you're referring to? What's it mean, how's it used? Regardless, please, could you explain why it would open up Pandora's Box? Maybe if I could have a better handle on what it is, I might not ask that question, but I can't, so I'm asking. If an user has the bin directories in the LINUXBASE in his path - he may accidentally execute linux programs when FreeBSD programs may be required - a configure run may detect linux things and enable stuff which is not valid for FreeBSD - ... (I don't remember everything by heart, and I'm too lazy currently
Re: Another question based on: Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
Quoting Thierry Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le Dim 13 jan 08 à 15:25:15 +0100, eculp [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivait : Is there an accepted or reasonably so, sure-fire way to get linux flash[79] working in Prerelease or in current? If so, would you please share how you did it on this list? Well, I have a working flashplugin 7, on FreeBSD-6 and FreeBSD-7. I have'nt configured anything special: just install www/linux-flashplugin7, and then www/nspluginwrapper. After that, follow the instructions in the pkg-message: nspluginwrapper -v -a -i (for each user) This is working for the native firefox seamonkey. Thanks, Thierry. I probably have something wrong and there are many variables. If I may ask, which linux emulator and kernel are you using and are you using AMD or i386 distributions? I'm assuming there could very well be differences with these. I'm going to uninstall all the related ports and completely erase the leftover garbage and try again to see what happens. Thanks again, ed It seems that flashplugin 8 has never been ported to FreeBSD (I don't know why), and flashplugin 9 is reported as not working. Regards, -- Th. Thomas. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another question based on: Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
Le Dim 13 jan 08 à 19:21:50 +0100, eculp [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivait : I probably have something wrong and there are many variables. If I may ask, which linux emulator and kernel are you using and are you using AMD or i386 distributions? I'm assuming there could very well be differences with these. Just i386, no amd64, and I run the default linuxolator (linux_base-fc-4_10 ATM). I'm going to uninstall all the related ports and completely erase the leftover garbage and try again to see what happens. Good luck! -- Th. Thomas. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
